Does science conflict with theism?

[glutamate antagonist]

Are they mutually exclusive? I know there are religious scientists, but do you believe that you can honestly hold theistic belief and be correct in claiming that science is your first priority in terms of beliefs?

[---Beany---]

I say yes.
I say that the physical world is a physical representation of the spiritual world and vice versa.

Science explains spirituality in physical terms, whereas spirituality explains the world in spiritual terms.

This is why so many physical concepts are used to help understand spiritual concepts (see many eastern proverbs).

The universe is the body of god. God is the mind of the universe.

[Real.PUA]

Science offers no support for the existence of a deity. Thus, to believe in a deity you must base your belief on something nonscientific.

[KikoSanchez]

Science is based on observation. The "spiritual" can never be experienced by definition, so no science can never give you any support for spiritual realms/deities. There is a reason why we call these spritual people clinically insane.

[fallinghouse]

If science has no proof for theism, that does not mean that there is a conflict.

The conflict arises with the widespread, but rather unscientific belief that if there is no proof for something, then it doesn't exist.

If there was a scientific proof against theism, then yes, it would be conflicting to someone who holds science as the first priority. Is there one?

[chumpion]

Science deals with facts.

Theism is a way for less intelligent people to fill in the gaps between the facts so they can sleep easy at night.

What happens when I die?
Scientist - Your body rots away to nothing, same as all other plants and animals.
Theist - Part of your body (an invisible part) floats up to a magical place to be judged by an all seeing, all powerful wizard who will judge wether you have followed his teachings correctly and will thusly admit you into his wonderful magical kingdom.

The first is the truth - the second is what theists really, really want to be true.

[Surak]

"
If there was a scientific proof against theism, then yes, it would be conflicting to someone who holds science as the first priority. Is there one?"

Here's how it works: The people making the fucking ridiculous claim show some kind of proof that they're not full of shit, *then* we take them seriously. Until that day, anyone who looks at the world around them and says "You know what, there's nothing to indicate that some all powerful dude made this" doesn't have to "prove" shit.

That said, the fact that if religions were people they'd be giant walking logical fallacies roaming around the planet should be a big fucking clue as to the truthfulness of their claims.

"The conflict arises with the widespread, but rather unscientific belief that if there is no proof for something, then it doesn't exist."

If there is no proof for something, then there is no reason to assume that it exists. Do you understand this distinction? Most people don't seem to.

[fallinghouse]

Originally Posted by chumpion

What happens when I die?
Scientist - Your body rots away to nothing, same as all other plants and animals.

Actually, the science is that all observed parts of the body rot away to nothing, same as all other plants and animals. Why? Because you can't have empirical evidence proving that unobservable things don't exist, so saying they don't exist is opinion. The science is that their existence is currently scientifically irrelevant.

However, scientifically irrelevant =/= nonexistant, so there is no conflict for a scientist to believe in life after death.

[chumpion]

Originally Posted by fallinghouse

Actually, the science is that all observed parts of the body rot away to nothing, same as all other plants and animals. Why? Because you can't have empirical evidence proving that unobservable things don't exist, so saying they don't exist is opinion. The science is that their existence is currently scientifically irrelevant.

However, scientifically irrelevant =/= nonexistant, so there is no conflict for a scientist to believe in life after death.

Thats sort of right. Scientists don't go around making stuff up for the hell of it either. Just because someone says there is this unobservable thing doesn't make it true. Yes, it may be true, but lots of things may be true that are equally improbable. And more importantly, there is no evidence what-so-ever to suggest it is true in the first place.

Whats to stop someone saying "when you die, your soul turns into a fish"? It is just as improbable as the "wizard in the sky" belief, but most religious people wouldn't believe it.

Religious people just need comfort there is more out there after death, and their chosen sect is what works for them.

[fallinghouse]

Originally Posted by Surak

Here's how it works: The people making the fucking ridiculous claim show some kind of proof that they're not full of shit, *then* we take them seriously. Until that day, anyone who looks at the world around them and says "You know what, there's nothing to indicate that some all powerful dude made this" doesn't have to "prove" shit.

Take note of what is being argued here. It is not whether God exists, but whether it is mutually exclusive to be a scientific theist. And since you can't prove that something is not mutually exclusive, then a valid affirmative answer to the question must take the form of a proof that they are mutually exclusive.

That said, the fact that if religions were people they'd be giant walking logical fallacies roaming around the planet should be a big fucking clue as to the truthfulness of their claims.

The question is not, 'do specific religions conflict with science', so whether Christianity or Islam or whatever has any real or imagined logical contradictions is irrelevant. What would be relevant would be a logical contradiction between science and all possible forms of theism. Do you have one?

If there is no proof for something, then there is no reason to assume that it exists. Do you understand this distinction? Most people don't seem to.

Wrong. What do you think the purpose of a novel scientific experiment is? It's to gather proof for something that currently has none; why? because it's existence might be useful. Think of the tests against Aristotlean physics performed by Gallileo. Think of Einstein looking for bending light at the eclipse of the sun. As scientists, they would not bother to make these experiments if the lack of proof for their ideas meant they were wrong.

The scientific view on the existence of things with no proof is that their existence is scientifically irrelevant until sufficient proof can be provided. It is unjustified by science to say that these things don't exist.

However, because something is scientifically irrelevant does not mean that it is theologically irrelevant, so there is nothing scientifically flawed in having faith in the existence of something without proof.